Conventional reality has been arrived at by common consensus, so is a valid reality but subordinate to ultimate. Therefore its self is legitimate in context, as stated in the quote from SN 1.25. However this cannot be understood in mere words it has to be experienced, that means having some knowledge of both realities from the Buddhist view. It’s not possible for a beginner to know what conventional reality is until it has been isolated through studying impermanence.
"You may know the story. The Buddha was once staying in a simsapa forest with a group of monks. He picked up a few simsapa leaves—which are like miniature aspen leaves—and asked the monks which was greater: the number of leaves in his hand or the number of leaves in the forest. The monks replied that, of course, there were far more leaves in the forest than in his hand.
The Buddha went on to say that, in the same way, the things he had known through direct knowledge but had not taught were like the leaves in the forest. The things he had taught based on his direct knowledge were like the leaves in his hand. Why had he taught so little? Because, in his words, the things he had not taught “were not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to unbinding.”
[…]
"As for teachings whose meaning shouldn’t be drawn out any further, two prime examples are the Buddha’s teachings on self and not-self. Nowhere in the Canon does the Buddha say either that there is a self or that there is no self. Questions of “Who am I?” “Do I exist?” “Do I not exist?” he says, are not worthy of attention. In fact, he goes on to say that views that attempt to answer these questions—such as “I have a self” or “I have no self”—are a fetter bound by which you’re not freed from suffering and stress (MN 2). So, to stay on the path, you should try to avoid paying attention to such questions. "—Thanissaro
" “As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self—MN 2
One thing is what the EBTs actually say, the other what it means.
What the texts say consistently is that Khandhas and Salayatana are anatta.
There are roughly two camps about how to interpret this: 1. There is no atta 2. That the Buddha didn’t make an ontological statement but rather a pragmatic epistemological one (which would not mean that there is a ‘hidden’ atta but rather that any statement about a ‘real’ atta-as-such is worthless).
What does that mean? In my observation this is enough for large parts of the ‘community’ to still infer the traditional interpretation of “In Buddhism there is no soul”.
This, however, is a superficial interpretation. It would be more correct to apply interpretations to atta. The jump to the conclusion that atta = self/soul is not justified (yet). Mostly because our understanding of what ‘self’ and ‘soul’ is supposed to mean in the Christianity-infused English is superficial itself. So it’s necessary to investigate what atta/atman actually meant at that time (in contrast to jiva and purusa for example), and to apply anatta to that.
The majority of people want neat little boxes and concepts, hence the ‘teaching’ of anatta = no/not-soul. That’s just how the mind works.
Yes, I think people got different ways of interpretation of Anatta. I have read some people even said there is indeed a Self yet it should treated as “Not-self” on internet. Meanwhile, some said Soul and Self is different concept and Buddha never denied that there is a Soul. While as I read in Kathavathu, the Puggalavadin argued since Buddha said “One working for own self’s good…”, there must be a Self.
But reading both Suttas and Abhidhamma texts, along with daily experiences, I realized that the entire Five Aggregates affected by Clinging is actually Anicca. With that being said, these aggregates are bound to sufferings and heading to sufferings in the end of the day (no matter how pleasant they are now). Since we know that these aggregates are Anicca and Dukkha, we don’t exercise control over them, then it is Anatta (this is not me, not mine, not my Self). With this being said, the entire Five Aggregates affected by Clinging is exhibiting these three characteristics, hence it is void (Suññatā), without “Atta”, and it is merely a chain of rising and ceasing phenomena. Whatever things arise, thereby will cease accordingly due to conditionality. This is so far my understanding of this teaching.
Seeing this way, I felt that my clinging to material things and mental states (especially envy and greed) can be reduced bit by bit.
...I ghetto-hide my original thoughts on this subject; I am playing catch-up.
I’ve been musing on ideas near this ^^ for some months.
The description of atman is typically given something like ‘eternal self’, ‘persistent self’, ‘absolute self’…something of that nature. It seems reasonable then that if ‘anatman’ = ‘no atman’, then it would mean ‘no eternal self’, ‘no persistent self’ etc. Somehow though, the ‘eternal’ (etc) qualifier is dropped when discussing anatta.
In simple language, “I / you / they” all exist:
even the Buddha made self-references e.g. “I have a sore back”
no-one will seriously suggest that we all use one shared user account for D&D forum
most here will have social security numbers or equivalent.
In simple terms I exist, albeit as a constantly changing process, a thought about thoughts yada x3. “I” just won’t exist beyond this life any more than Descartes
Ayya Khema , in this relevant dhamma talk, explicitly states at ~44’10 that “you are not going to come back”…Or as @ravi said (italics mine):
Actually he didn’t refute the brahmanical atman but a certain idea of atman that we don’t know the source of. Most likely a shared understanding of sramanas that isn’t known to us because of the lack of their sources. There are only very very few references to concepts mentioned in the upanisads.
Just because atman is mentioned prominently in the upanisads doesn’t mean that the Buddha addressed these concepts specifically.
What if someone insists that there is a Soul, yet it is changing, but there is always this soul?
Soul as Atman was particular to the Brahmins. Others at the time did not share this view, such as the Naganthas. They viewed the soul as always changing and so emphasized the need for absolute mind and body stillness.
In a nutshell, soul can be viewed as a photograph or a movie. Somewhere in this site I know that @Sujato says that the 5 aggregates have this property of always changing and so do not meet this notion of Atman self.
Having never been a Brahmin, I find the not-Atman thing something of a nothing burger. I find deeper states of meditation (Jhanas) help undermine self as person. This is more meaningful to me.
Are the person experiences the consequence and the person did the action the same? No.
Are the person experiences the consequence and the person did the action unrelated? No.
Is there something eternal? Yes, only nibbāna.
Does that person possess something eternal? No.
Does that person control something eternal? No.
Does that person have something eternal as a characteristic? No.
Is something eternal inside that person? No.
Does that person create something eternal? No.
Does that person belong to something eternal? No.
Does something eternal control that person? No.
Does something eternal have that person as a characteristic? No.
Is that person inside something eternal? No.
Does something eternal create that person? No.
Does that person feel/perceive/think/do/know? Yes.
Does something eternal feel/perceive/think/do/know? No.
Does something eternal have physical/feeling/perception/thought/act/consciousness as characteristics? No.
Is physical/feeling/perception/thought/act/consciousness something eternal? No.
So, what does a person have anything to do with something eternal?
The eternal is no suffering. If a person does not want suffering, he/she needs to realize and practice the path leads to the eternal. Succeeding in doing so, a person will experience the eternal.
Soul is nothing but your emotions that changes influeced by the mind. The question should be is there a spirit in Buddhism. Mind Body and Spirit is all part of your Self. But the point is realizing they aren’t really yours as a method to reach the Deathless. Which I’m starting to think otherwise what it meant. Buddha said after reaching Nirvana there isn’t rebirth. But maybe what he meant was that there will be no new rebirth. Meaning the consciousness will not change into a fresh new life again. For me those that reached Nirvana are actually spirit that went to another planet which is more advanced. I mean the point was trancend this planet. Samsara of this planet. Buddha also said he found out many things which he didn’t want to declare because it doesn’t help in the spiritual life. Now tell me what you think they are?
“The consciousness of a person is like the milk, milk can turn into curds, then from curds to butter, and from butter to ghee. The spirit of a person is the same, from the spirit, a person is reborn, grows up, and becomes old. From old age comes death, and after death, the consciousness is again reborn. When this body comes to an end, it takes another body. It is like the interchange of two wicks (of a lamp).”
Ayya Khema 
, in 
